Gillaspie v. United States

Full title: CRISTINA GILLASPIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jun 26, 2023

No. 22-2166 (4th Cir. Jun. 26, 2023)

Opinion

22-2166

06-26-2023

CRISTINA GILLASPIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; SPECIAL AGENT DOYLE MULLIS; SPECIAL AGENT ANTHONY LUCKMAN, Defendants-Appellees.

R. Britton Kelly, Peter Phillips, KELLY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David H. Estes, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Joshua M. Koppel, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: June 22, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:21-cv-01935-DCN)

ON BRIEF:

R. Britton Kelly, Peter Phillips, KELLY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David H. Estes, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Joshua M. Koppel, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM

Cristina Gillaspie appeals the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant Defendants' motions to dismiss and drop parties in Gillaspie's action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 to 2680, the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 706, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Upon review of the arguments pressed on appeal in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. Gillaspie v. United States, No. 2:21-cv-01935-DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.